philbo wrote:- The Order can only be requested by law enforcement, family members or housemates. Not the general public
- While the initial hearing is exparte, the law stipulates that the following evidence must be submitted:

A written affidavit or oral statement made under oath by the person making the request.

The very first line is where this "law" is flawed.

So any family member or house mate may make such a sworn affidavit, and with no other "proof" just that persons word a judge may issue such and order of confiscation.

And your very first sentence is where you make a mistake. A persons sworn statement must be supported by other evidence or the person making such a false statement would face an A level misdemeanor, the same punishment the accused would face if he violated the order. The law requires other evidence in support of the person making the statement.

philbo wrote:- The Order can only be requested by law enforcement, family members or housemates. Not the general public
- While the initial hearing is exparte, the law stipulates that the following evidence must be submitted:

A written affidavit or oral statement made under oath by the person making the request.

The very first line is where this "law" is flawed.

So any family member or house mate may make such a sworn affidavit, and with no other "proof" just that persons word a judge may issue such and order of confiscation.

And your very first sentence is where you make a mistake. A persons sworn statement must be supported by other evidence or the person making such a false statement would face an A level misdemeanor, the same punishment the accused would face if he violated the order. The law requires other evidence in support of the person making the statement.

We will have to agree to disagree...
I guess Im referring to the part that states

"- While the initial hearing is exparte, the law stipulates that the following evidence must be submitted:

A written affidavit or oral statement made under oath by the person making the request"

And such a sworn statement can be made by any family member, any house-mate

Your distraction to the issue being discussed of legal issues should it be proven the sworn statement was false is, well,, not relative.

A irate spouses, MIL, sisters, brother uncles, or house mates do not consider that a fact at the time, thus the action will still happen.
And second, good luck proving it was false..
At best it will be seen as unfounded .. You can hardly disprove what was said in a conversation between two.
You can not disprove a "feeling" of threat
You hardly can disprove a reported action that was made by the defendant

If there is video with audio, then sure maybe..
But likely what will happen is the Judge will decide, the feelings and claimed observations are not sufficient to warrant the order..
And all of that is AFTER some judge has granted it, for reason I have already stated.

Its my opinion, my experience, my observation of past cases I know of..
You can disagree, but it is what it is.

Thanks, no harm no bad feelings, we just disagree.

Last edited by E.Marquez on Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

No words or opinions I post in this forum are intended to be offensive to any member here.

Sec. 573.001. APPREHENSION BY PEACE OFFICER WITHOUT WARRANT. (a) A peace officer, without a warrant, may take a person into custody if the officer:

(1) has reason to believe and does believe that:

(A) the person is a person with mental illness; and

(B) because of that mental illness there is a substantial risk of serious harm to the person or to others unless the person is immediately restrained; and

(2) believes that there is not sufficient time to obtain a warrant before taking the person into custody.

(b) A substantial risk of serious harm to the person or others under Subsection (a)(1)(B) may be demonstrated by:

(1) the person's behavior; or

(2) evidence of severe emotional distress and deterioration in the person's mental condition to the extent that the person cannot remain at liberty.

(c) The peace officer may form the belief that the person meets the criteria for apprehension:

(1) from a representation of a credible person; or

(2) on the basis of the conduct of the apprehended person or the circumstances under which the apprehended person is found.

And then:

573.025(b).

(h) A peace officer who takes a person into custody under Subsection (a) may immediately seize any firearm found in possession of the person. After seizing a firearm under this subsection, the peace officer shall comply with the requirements of Article 18.191, Code of Criminal Procedure.

I think it would be fitting if the good people on the eastern side of the mountains rose up and overthrew the pansies on the mountain range's western side in Oregon, Washington and Kalifornia. Unfortunately, the conservatives are far outnumbered in these liberal principalities.

This is a very challenging topic. We keep saying that it's not the gun but it's the person that does the harm with the guns. So, quit blaming the guns and focus on the people that are troubled and may do something to harm themselves or someone else with a gun.

If we are going to keep placing the responsibility on family members to make sure their mentally ill family member doesn't hurt themselves or others with a gun, then they need to have some legal way to get a family member help and to prevent them from doing harm to themselves or others. Rather than just saying the government is trying to make it easier to confiscate our guns, how about offering up a solution that is practical and effective. Unfortunately, taking someone to court to get them ruled mentally ill and committed or their guns confiscated takes time. While waiting for the court date and ruling, a lot of damage can be done.

So, what's the answer? Allow someone that is mentally ill to continue to possess deadly weapons while we wait on a court to deem them mentally ill or do provide a method to someone to get the mentally ill person's guns away from them temporarily until they can go to court and have a court determine their status?

mojo84 wrote:This is a very challenging topic. We keep saying that it's not the gun but it's the person that does the harm with the guns. So, quit blaming the guns and focus on the people that are troubled and may do something to harm themselves or someone else with a gun.

If we are going to keep placing the responsibility on family members to make sure their mentally ill family member doesn't hurt themselves or others with a gun, then they need to have some legal way to get a family member help and to prevent them from doing harm to themselves or others. Rather than just saying the government is trying to make it easier to confiscate our guns, how about offering up a solution that is practical and effective. Unfortunately, taking someone to court to get them ruled mentally ill and committed or their guns confiscated takes time. While waiting for the court date and ruling, a lot of damage can be done.

So, what's the answer? Allow someone that is mentally ill to continue to possess deadly weapons while we wait on a court to deem them mentally ill or do provide a method to someone to get the mentally ill person's guns away from them temporarily until they can go to court and have a court determine their status?

This is why the process is somewhat outside of what we think of as "due process". In practice, at least here in Texas, there's probably more due process and rights protection in these courts than for the accused in any other court. It's because of the nature of "rights-stripping" that many eyes are on these judges who hear these dockets, and judges are very aware of that.

mojo84 wrote:This is a very challenging topic. We keep saying that it's not the gun but it's the person that does the harm with the guns. So, quit blaming the guns and focus on the people that are troubled and may do something to harm themselves or someone else with a gun.

If we are going to keep placing the responsibility on family members to make sure their mentally ill family member doesn't hurt themselves or others with a gun, then they need to have some legal way to get a family member help and to prevent them from doing harm to themselves or others. Rather than just saying the government is trying to make it easier to confiscate our guns, how about offering up a solution that is practical and effective. Unfortunately, taking someone to court to get them ruled mentally ill and committed or their guns confiscated takes time. While waiting for the court date and ruling, a lot of damage can be done.

So, what's the answer? Allow someone that is mentally ill to continue to possess deadly weapons while we wait on a court to deem them mentally ill or do provide a method to someone to get the mentally ill person's guns away from them temporarily until they can go to court and have a court determine their status?

mojo84 wrote:This is a very challenging topic. We keep saying that it's not the gun but it's the person that does the harm with the guns. So, quit blaming the guns and focus on the people that are troubled and may do something to harm themselves or someone else with a gun.

If we are going to keep placing the responsibility on family members to make sure their mentally ill family member doesn't hurt themselves or others with a gun, then they need to have some legal way to get a family member help and to prevent them from doing harm to themselves or others. Rather than just saying the government is trying to make it easier to confiscate our guns, how about offering up a solution that is practical and effective. Unfortunately, taking someone to court to get them ruled mentally ill and committed or their guns confiscated takes time. While waiting for the court date and ruling, a lot of damage can be done.

So, what's the answer? Allow someone that is mentally ill to continue to possess deadly weapons while we wait on a court to deem them mentally ill or do provide a method to someone to get the mentally ill person's guns away from them temporarily until they can go to court and have a court determine their status?